2009.11.24
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/24/09)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
WORKSHOP MEETING
NOVEMBER 24, 2009
INDEX
DISCUSSION Policies and Procedures, etc. 1.
THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD
AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING
MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID
MINUTES.
0
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/24/09)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
WORKSHOP MEETING
NOVEMBER 24, 2009
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN
GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY
THOMAS SEGULJIC
DONALD KREBS
STEPHEN TRAVER
DONALD SIPP
STEPHEN JACKOSKI, ALTERNATE
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-CRAIG BROWN
LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE
MRS. STEFFAN-Do we have enough items to have the second meeting in December?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we were just talking about that, and part of the problem is we
tabled a project to a specific date.
thth
MR. OBORNE-Yes, you’re on the 15 and the 17 of December. So it’s not like it’s the
rd
23 or something.
MRS. STEFFAN-The Chamber of Commerce mixer. I don’t normally go, but it’s at the
Inn at Erstlow that Thursday.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the only real item we had is the discussion of Policies and
Procedures, but, you know, since we’re getting together for a workshop, I also thought it
would be a good time to re-visit our manual, our Policies and Procedures manual, and
perhaps maybe establish a committee to take a look at it and maybe make some
recommendations. Because I’m a firm believer that we should take a look at that stuff
periodically, and just see if it needs to be tweaked or modified and I don’t know if we’ve
really looked at it since we adopted the new Zoning Ordinance.
MR. BROWN-Not too much, or definitely not since the new Zoning Ordinance.
MR. OBORNE-I think ’07 was the last one?
MR. BROWN-Yes, I think there’s been some tweaks here and there, but no overhaul, not
since May.
MRS. STEFFAN-Didn’t we look at it last January at our organizational meeting?
MR. HUNSINGER-We did, but, you know, we didn’t really look at it in depth.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-We said if anyone had items to discuss or recommended changes we
would consider them, and nobody had any. So I don’t know if it was because no one
really looked at it closely or because, you know, it wasn’t like assigned to people to take
a look at. So, I think it would be worthwhile to, you know, maybe have a committee of
two or three people to take a look at it, come back to the Board with any suggestions.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, are there any issues we have?
MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t think so, but, you know, I just want to make sure it’s current
and, you know, and doing what it’s supposed to do.
MR. SEGULJIC-All right. Like I said, it’s been a couple of years since we made any
changes at all.
MR. SEGULJIC-More of a brush up, then.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
1
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/24/09)
MR. OBORNE-And I imagine there’s no guarantee that there will be any changes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. We just make sure that somebody really looks at it. I mean, I
remember when we adopted this, when I first was on the Planning Board, we didn’t have
anything, you know, so it was like a major step forward to even have that, and we have
changed it. We haven’t really changed it that much since it was first adopted.
MRS. STEFFAN-I think the thing that keeps changing is the items that we see every
month, and we made some revisions in January to six, and that’s been working so far.
The last couple of months we’ve actually been getting out at a reasonable time. So I
think we’re finally at a point where some of our systems are, business systems are
working with the Planning Board. So, you know, we’re not here until one o’clock in the
morning, and I think that that is working well.
MR. KREBS-Well, I said earlier, too, I think that the fact that he’s working with the
applicant before we come to the meeting, and working on a lot of those problems has
really streamlined this. That’s what I was trying to have us do with this thing was to have
that interface between you and the engineering people and the applicant before we get
there, because we would get their and we’d have 38 engineering comments that we had
to review during the meeting, many of which were standard stuff that could be easily
resolved just telling the applicant that you need this kind of a lamp. You need this, and
they’d say, okay, fine, but it just took a lot of time, and since you’ve been doing that, I find
that our meetings are moving much faster.
MRS. STEFFAN-And I have to admit, from a management point of view, I’d like to
commend Keith. I think he’s doing a great job. You’re doing great Staff work for us, so
that, as a Board, we’re able to weigh and consider the information that’s presented to us
and make decisions, which is great, and you’re doing a great job.
MR. OBORNE-Thank you.
MRS. STEFFAN-And I also think that VISION Engineering is also doing a good job for
us. In my time on the Planning Board, we had C.T. Male and then we’ve had VISION
Engineering, and I think that VISION Engineering, and I think that VISION Engineering is
doing a good job. They’re kind of going above and beyond, and yes they’re providing us
with engineering input, but they’re also weighing and considering that engineering input
with Code. They know the Code and they’re quoting the Code, and I also think that
they’ve been very helpful in that regard, and again, helping do completed Staff work for
the Board so that we can weigh and consider the information that’s presented and make
better decisions. So, you know, I think that we’re in a pretty good place with our support
systems at this point.
MR. JACKOSKI-And if I can just add, I think the fact that you, VISION takes over a lot,
looks at the stormwater. You look at a lot of the (lost word) issues.
MR. OBORNE-Well, the planning and the Code issues.
MR. JACKOSKI-The planning and the Code issues, divided that out.
MR. OBORNE-Yes. I mean, there was a lot of redundancy for about three or four
months there, and I know that that was an issue, and Craig took care of that, and, you
know, it certainly has streamlined the whole situation. Plus the application.
MR. BROWN-Yes. It was definitely a conscious decision, and I hope it didn’t step on any
toes, but we saw that Keith notes were like this and the engineering comments were like
this. Applicant’s get these huge bills for all the hours that are spent. You guys get long
lists of comments that you have to mull over and decide which ones are important and
which ones are small potatoes kind of items. So we went to the step of saying, look,
VISION, we want you to look at just the technical stuff, the stormwater plan, the erosion
and sediment control, best management practices stuff that has to do with the SPDES
permits and the SWPPP issues, and all the Code issues, you know, are the parking
spaces the right size, do they have the right number of parking spaces, that’s done at the
Staff level. So you don’t have that two sets of the same stuff, which seemed to make
things go on longer and longer, and so there was no effort to try and short-circuit the
Board and what the Board thought, you know, things that they want to have. It was just
to hopefully make things go smoother for both the Board and the applicant.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, and I think the other thing that happened in the last half of the
year, which has been helpful, I mean, we’ve had some meetings post Planning Board
2
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/24/09)
meetings to say, okay, if somebody comes to us and has 45 outstanding items between
Staff Notes and VISION Engineering comments, we’re tabling them. We’re not talking
about their application, and the first six months of the year, we were talking about those
applications, and it was really a waste of our time because we ended up spending an
hour, or sometimes up to one hour and forty-five minutes on an application that was
going nowhere.
MR. OBORNE-Especially when an applicant comes to you and wants to offer new
information that hasn’t been vetted by myself or by VISION or Craig or whoever needs to
vet it. That’s a difficult position that you put yourself into. I know we discussed that, you
know, not accepting that and really take a hard line.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. It was somewhat misleading to the applicants, too, because they
were trying to make an argument and it would sometimes end up in almost an
adversarial situation with us, which was not our purpose at all, but to the applicant,
because we were discussing these things that were not submitted, they were thinking,
well, but why are we talking about it, then. Let me explain, you know let me explain. So,
yes, that’s a huge improvement, and with the agenda, I think, beyond the numbers, it’s
clearly been, I mean, there’s some time management taking place, in the sense of
looking at the applications in terms of how much time we need to appropriately and fairly
evaluate in a given meeting, so we don’t have a set number of items necessarily each
meeting. We have a full meeting based upon what’s required to reasonably look at the
information and discuss it with the applicant and their representative. So, yes, it’s just,
it’s a huge improvement.
MR. BROWN-Yes, and a lot of that I think has to do with all the time that Keith puts with
working with the applicants and coordinating with their engineer and VISION and those
comments to try and get those as flat as possible before they get to you, but, you know,
up until May, we had the old Ordinance you were working with. Probably until July or
August I guess we were still trying to clean up, maybe even September, clean up
applications that had started under the old Code.
MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, we had one last week.
MR. BROWN-As recently as last week, had old applications, different submittal
requirements. Once we started using the new application, based on the new Code, and
the new checklist of requirements to basically say, you show us all these things or we
don’t even put you on an agenda, that’s kind of shifted towards shorter review times for
you guys and for us because we don’t take the time to review them if they’re not ready to
go on an agenda. We try not to get them forwarded to you. Sometimes there are
circumstances where we.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, the best part is that it puts the burden back on the
applicant and makes them be the responsible party to get the information, whereas
before we seemed to always be caught in these Catch-22 situations where they’ve said,
what do you mean the application’s not complete? Well, I’ll just ask the Board for a
waiver on that.
MR. BROWN-That’s a big trap we got caught in a long time ago, and saying that doesn’t
mean that they can’t come in and ask for all those waivers now, like Breda just did on his
place up there on Aviation Road. That, to me, was a reasonable example of not
changing anything from the outside. You don’t even know what’s going to be going on.
It’s all inside. So I don’t want to make any changes to the outside. So, I mean, that was
one that seemed to work, even though there was really no review on our part because
they didn’t submit anything. They asked for waivers from everything.
MR. TRAVER-And it was clearly because the waiver was appropriate, not as a way to
avoid complying with the information that we needed to assess the project.
MR. BROWN-Exactly.
MRS. STEFFAN-Right, and it’s a temporary situation. The other thing is that, in that
particular situation, is that the applicant cleaned up that property, and so even before we
heard the application, that applicant did all the right things, so that we could move that
thing forward. One of the things that happens on our visits, our site visits, is that we’re
seeing people who aren’t living up to the expectations of the Town or their expectations
of their responsibilities as property owner and as an applicant, and so what decisions
can we make? How believable is their application and their commitment to what they’re
going to be doing going forward? I’m not so sure on that one. I don’t buy into that. So,
3
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/24/09)
you know, their performance, past performance, has everything to do with, you know,
performance going forward, and so if people are investing the time with Keith and with
the Community Development Department about making sure their application is
complete, making sure they’re doing the right things to fulfill the commitments of the, you
know, or the requirements of the Code, then we can support that, but if they’re not, why
should we invest time if they’re not going to?
MR. SIPP-I think a good example of that is Valenti’s new business park down there and
we asked for a sidewalk and we went round and round and finally they decided to put in
crushed stone, and we agreed to it, and to landscape it well, and if you go by there, take
a look. There’s one building there, the dentist’s office now, but I’m sure that you’ll, when
things pop here and the recession slides by, that there’ll be more going in there, because
it’s going to be a good looking situation.
MR. TRAVER-Good location, too.
MR. OBORNE-It’s a great addition, absolutely.
MR. BROWN-I guess one quick question. We don’t have to have a whole lot of
discussion on it. It’s a VISION Engineering question, and this is maybe more of an
ethical/philosophical question I have. Does anybody on the Board have any issues with
VISION representing an applicant or sitting before you as an agent, and then potentially
the next application they’re sitting at the other table giving you guys comments.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, from my point of view, that’s getting a little creepy. I mean, we
didn’t see that in the first year. This year we’ve seen it a couple of times, and, you know,
Mike, I know he’s a new agent for VISION Engineering, but, you know, some of the
projects that they’ve been representing are pretty complex, and on one hand I
understand why they want to do it because they know the Code better than anyone else,
but from another point of view, it’s a little creepy for me, because they are representing
the Town. I’m sure there’s a lot more work that they can do in other parts of the region.
MR. BROWN-Yes, well, I know when we had Rist-Frost and C.T. Male years ago, and
they never represented an application before any Town Board when they were doing
Town engineering review. The Town does have a back up engineer, as you know, Clark
Wilkinson, but, you know, potentially Dan could be reviewing Clark’s work at one
meeting, and Clark could be reviewing Dan’s work at the same meeting, and then they
both could be sitting at the table representing an application before you that the other
one’s reviewing. So, I don’t know, to me, I guess it just seems a little weird, but if you
guys are comfortable with it, and it’s ultimately, I guess, the Town Board’s decision, but.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, and that’s what happens. The first time it came up, you know, I
made some phone calls and in fact I even talked to Dan about it, Dan Ryan, and Town
Counsel and everything else. I don’t, I think I spoke to you, didn’t I, Craig?
MR. BROWN-Probably.
MR. HUNSINGER-It was like a year and a half ago.
MR. BROWN-Yes. There’s something in the contract that addresses that, but it just, like
Gretchen said, seems to be more frequent, you know. In the begin, if there was a list of,
here are the that clients I have. I don’t really want to stop the projects that I have going
with them, fine, but they’re my clients, and I’m going to get all the rest of their projects in
the future, it just seems a little strange.
MRS. STEFFAN-And there was one particular project that we’ve seen in the last three
months, and I used the word creepy because the Paragon Engineering comments, there
were 40 plus comments of outstanding things that needed to be addressed, and then
VISION Engineering was going to work with Paragon Engineering on satisfying those
comments, and then miraculously, when it came before us, they were all taken care of.
So, you know, from an ethics point of view, I think we’re in a very gray area, and so I
think that VISION Engineering needs to re-think their position on that. I’m sure they get
compensated very well from the Town of Queensbury for what they do, and I’m sure that
they can make a really good living doing that and then representing applicants outside of
the Queensbury area. So they may want to weigh and consider that.
MR. TRAVER-Well, it’s clearly a conflict of interest. I guess the question is, well, it would
be with one of us, is it a conflict that, acknowledged, is okay, or is it a conflict of interest
that, you know, we can’t tolerate, and I guess in my mind, I have been looking at it, since
4
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/24/09)
the information that they supply, the goal, in my mind, should be that it’s not subjective.
That it’s an analysis from an engineering standpoint, and therefore it stands on its own
merit, and therefore is hopefully not subject to some of the ethical concerns that might be
raised in a more subjective analysis, but, on the other hand, my feeling now, discussing it
now, is that if there’s any gray area then we should encapsulate that somehow in some
kind of, you know, contractual relationship, so that there’s no, not only for our sake but
for the sake of the citizens, so that there’s no even appearance of an inappropriate
conflict of interest.
MR. BROWN-Well, the practicality of it right now is that the only people that really know
about that or see it are the people in this room and the applicants. It’s not like the public
is picking this up saying, what’s this, you’ve got this engineer reviewing (lost words), you
know, so at some point could they? Sure. Who wants to get them splashed back on
them.
MR. KREBS-What about, you know, I’ve talked with Paul Schonewolf about, you know,
shouldn’t a Town this size have a professional engineer as an employee, as the Town
Engineer, so that there is none of this potential conflict, and, not only that, but could that
professional engineer also be used by a Highway Department when they needed
something signed off by a professional, instead of, I don’t know what we’re spending in a
day.
MR. TRAVER-Well, the audit would disclose that, in the management letter. They would
basically say, you know, you’re spending too much money on this, and we’re
recommending that, you, instead of spending money over here, you invest it, for
example, in a staff person. So I don’t know when the last audit was.
MRS. STEFFAN-And I think one of the difficulties, you know, when you’re hiring a
consultant, it’s a different line item as far as a write-off. If you’re hiring an employee and
you’ve got the salary issue, but then you’ve got the benefits load that comes along with a
County employee, and I’m sure the Town Board would be looking at that. The other
issue is when you hire a consulting firm, often you have more depth within a consulting
firm than you might have, if you hire an engineer, he would have one specialty. He might
be a degreed civil engineer for example. When, you know, if you hire a consulting firm,
they may have four different engineers with different disciplines and one may be a land
use expert.
MR. KREBS-Yes, but how many engineers does VISION have?
MR. OBORNE-Two.
MR. HUNSINGER-Two.
MR. KREBS-But then Mike just joined them.
MRS. STEFFAN-But then they also have support people.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, but he’s LEED certified. I mean, he’s got a lot of credentials.
MR. KREBS-And I’m not saying, but maybe the person we hire could have those same
credentials.
MRS. STEFFAN-The other thing I’m concerned about is.
MR. KREBS-Because, can I just say one thing, too, to Steve’s point. The thing is, it’s not
only looking at the cost to the Town, it’s looking at the cost to the applicants. Our
applicants spend a huge amount of money with the engineer, and in fact, I’ve had
several people tell me that my engineer called the Town Engineer and they talked for 15
minutes or 10 minutes, and I got a bill for $200. Okay, which is probably the minimal bill
that they do. Well, the citizens of this community are paying that engineering fee,
whether they’re paying it through his salary, or whether they’re paying it directly to the
engineer. So it’s not only the money that we’re spending on the engineer, but it’s what
the applicants are spending on the application.
MR. OBORNE-There are also non-citizens that come before your Board, too. So, I
mean, there’s some bifurcation there.
5
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/24/09)
MR. TRAVER-Yes, and there are some market forces there that we don’t have any
control over. I mean, I’m just thinking in terms of your comment about the decision of,
should we contract services or should we hire an employee.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, and then one of the other issues becomes resource allocation
within the Town, and if you hire a Town Engineer, they are going to be, their duties and
responsibilities are going to be dissected between all of the Departments that need their
services, and so the engineer will have competing priorities between water and sewer,
community development, as well as any other project, you know, Main Street, for
example, and so my concern is that, if we have a Town Engineer, we have one person
and that we would have to pay a competitive wage to, and I don’t know if we could
manage that person’s performance adequately to meet the needs, the engineering
needs of the Town on a whole.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, that’s really all a Town Board issue, right?
MR. BROWN-It is.
MRS. STEFFAN-We talked about it before. I’ve been on the Planning Board for five
years. We’ve talked about it for the five years I’ve been around.
MR. KREBS-Most communities this size have a full-time Town Engineer.
MR. BROWN-Yes, the Water Department has an engineer on staff over there for Water
Department projects. The Highway Department doesn’t. They use VISION for projects
like that, but, you know, the reality in today’s market, the economy, the Town’s not going
to hire, you know, another $80, $90,000 a year position. It would be nice. I think
Gretchen’s hit on a lot of the points where is one person enough? How do you spread
out the work load.
MR. SEGULJIC-To create more work, would they need more specialties for it.
MR. TRAVER-It ends up cutting a paper circle. You end up saying, well, we really need
a support staff for a person, and then we’ve got to bring a consultant in for this project.
MR. SEGULJIC-I agree it would probably be better, but.
MR. BROWN-And other projects that it really costs the money on, those are, you know,
budgeted, capital improvement projects. The reviews that are done by, you know, the
engineering for this Board, they’re all reimbursed by the applicant. So it’s really not a
Town expense to do that. We outlay it until they pay us back, but.
MR. SEGULJIC-I guess, getting back to the VISION Engineering, I can see it happening
once, twice, something like that, but on the other hand, like you’re saying, it seems to be
happening more and more, and what are they telling potential clients? We understand
Queensbury’s Code, go with us, and I can just see it’s going to get out of hand.
MR. BROWN-Well, here’s an example for you. To this year, January of this year, the
Western Reserve project was reviewed by this Board and by VISION Engineering, the
enlargement of the pond. VISION was representing the Town to review the Hayes
project. Now VISION Engineering represents the Hayes’ as an applicant. So, you know,
is this a new client that’s on their list that just came up recently? So, I don’t know, it just
seemed to rub me the wrong way, and ultimately it is a Town Board decision, and to tell
you I think they’re going to stick with them for another year because they have some
open projects that they want to get finished up and maybe next year they’ll do an RFP for
engineering, but just something to put on everybody’s radar, when you get those
conflicts and you guys have all seen Clark’s comments versus Dan’s comments and all
of a sudden they’re this big and then the next day they’re this big, and who’s scratching
who’s back, and, you know, if you review mine this way, I’ll review yours this way, and,
you know, it may be that happens, maybe it doesn’t, but the perception out there
somebody could have is that.
MR. TRAVER-Well, that’s the concern that we have.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, in my mind it would be inappropriate for a VISION Engineering to
represent the Town for one client and then to become the vendor for that particular client.
That just, in my mind, it just crosses the streams.
6
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/24/09)
MR. OBORNE-Question for Craig, I guess, because I know, I’m on the Planning Board in
Moreau, and we have an issue with a piece of property that the Town engineer has a
vested interest in, and is also representing the client that’s going to be represented by
another engineer.
MR. BROWN-What’s the question?
MR. OBORNE-It was given to me as, okay, let’s say he wasn’t a vested party, didn’t own
half the property, do you have an issue with that, and what can we do, and I said, yes, I
do have an issue with it, and the question is, what can we do, and the answer was, you
can have the applicant change engineers. Is that something that this Board could do, in
your experience?
MR. BROWN-Well, you know, conflict of interest is always a tough one because most of
the time, if not all of the time, that’s something that should be called by the person who
has the conflict.
MR. KREBS-Right.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. BROWN-I can’t say you have a conflict of interest. You can’t represent this. It’s up
to you to know, to do the correct ethical thing and say what’s appropriate, and I have an
interest in this. What’s the appearance going to be if I do this, and if there’s any shadow
on it, you just recuse yourself and move on.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. Although, if they were to disclose the conflict of interest to us, maybe
we could decide whether that was an unacceptable conflict or an acceptable conflict,
because there can be certainly acceptable, once they’re disclosed. It’s not necessarily
always a problem, but it is if it’s not disclosed. So, maybe something could be done
where we just make sure that’s disclosed and discussed and some decision taken.
MR. KREBS-Well, just as you have, Steve. You’ve disclosed the fact that the people that
you’re working with from the Board are also people that work with you on your own
personal project. So therefore it’s disclosed and nobody has any.
MR. OBORNE-There’s no ambiguity.
MR. BROWN-Certainly when it comes to any financial connection. I don’t think there’s
any way to work through that one. It’s just you stand to gain financially on one side of
the equation or the other, so you should not be involved on either side.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, and I went to an ethics program put on actually by Mark
Schachner from Miller, Mannix at the last two Planning Federation programs that I went
to, and it is, ultimately, a Planning Board member’s decision whether they recuse
themselves from an application, but they do give you some criteria. You don’t have to,
but you make the independent decision.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-Recuse yourself because you have an issue with the ethics of what’s
before you?
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, if you have a relationship, if you have a financial interest. There
are several different layers of relationship that you should weigh and consider if you’re
going to recuse yourself, but the guidance that I got from those seminars was that you
don’t have to. It’s your independent decision, and so, you know, it’s really interesting.
You don’t have to back off. Even if you have a financial interest, as a Planning Board
member, you can say, well, you know, I can be reasonable. I can weigh and consider
that. Yes, well, what does the rest of the Board (lost word). Come on.
MR. TRAVER-I’ve seen examples of that in the area. Up in Lake George I can recall a
couple of cases where there was a Planning Board member, I believe, or maybe even a
Town Board member, who had a financial interest in a matter before them and would not
recuse himself.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, and the bottom line is, you know, I think what it ultimately falls to
is whether or not a law’s been violated, and the example that I frequently have given to
7
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/24/09)
people, I used to work in Vermont, and they did not have any, at the time, they didn’t
have any ethics laws, and there were people that were employees of the State that
worked in the Economic Development Department that were also licensed real estate
brokers, and they would show clients wearing their State hat. They would show client’s
property and then collect a commission, and there was nothing illegal about it, and then,
you know, years later, the State finally passed ethics laws to say, you know, but I mean,
isn’t that ultimately what it comes down to, you know, where the ring was broken? I
mean, that’s really the final determination, you know.
MR. TRAVER-Well, not only in case of laws broken, but it could also become a matter of
overturning a decision, maybe.
MR. HUNSINGER-But I bring it up to suggest that’s why I think it lies with the individual,
you know, because like so many other things that we deal with and wrestle with on the
Planning Board, you know, the only way to really resolve the issue is for someone to take
it to court and try it and have some judge make a verdict, you know.
MR. OBORNE-Well, be prepared for VISION Engineering to come before you again.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I was that’s what I was going to ask, is there any action?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, what can we do, other than say we (lost words)?
MR. SEGULJIC-The Board’s aware of this, obviously.
MR. BROWN-The Town Board is aware.
MR. SEGULJIC-The Town Board. Do they have any issue with it?
MR. BROWN-Well, like I said, in their contract, and we’re in the process of negotiating
for next year, there is a paragraph, a clause in there that says, you know, we have
existing clients, I think, I don’t think it’s specific to projects, that we want to maintain and
continue as of this date.
MR. SEGULJIC-Does it have a list of them?
MR. BROWN-There’s no list.
MR. HUNSINGER-But that’s the thing, though, when we were talking earlier about some
of the newer ones that have come up, you know, I understand their contract had that
waiver in it, but.
MR. BROWN-But there’s no specificity as to the list.
MR. SEGULJIC-Right. Can we get that specified? Because what’s an existing client?
MR. BROWN-I guess to answer your question, what can you do? I guess the first step
would be to file some sort of a grievance with the Town Ethics Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Which we don’t have.
MR. BROWN-Which we have I think one member on the Board right now if there is
anybody on the Ethics Board. So, where do you go from there? I don’t know the
answer.
MR. SEGULJIC-Could we recommend, via Craig, that we get a list of their clients in
there, try and nail it down, and if they come back with a long list, kind of say, well, wait a
second, now, let’s get real here, and see how far they’re willing to work with it.
MR. BROWN-Yes, that’s on my short list of things.
MR. TRAVER-And that part of the contract should really be 180 degrees. It really should
be, you know, clients that we’ve represented in the past, we won’t represent, you know,
we won’t, being the project engineer for the Town, so that it clearly eliminates any
conflict of interest, not insisting on one. I mean, that’s kind of crazy.
MR. BROWN-I like to draw just a black line in the sand that says, if you work for the
Town, you don’t work. There’s no gray area. There’s no list to work from.
8
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/24/09)
MR. SEGULJIC-And I would agree with that.
MR. TRAVER-I had never heard of such a thing, of writing in a contract, you know, I’m
going to write in that I have a conflict and it’s okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-And that was the answer that I got back from Town Counsel.
MR. OBORNE-Well, VISION is allowed to make a living, though, are they not?
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Absolutely.
MRS. STEFFAN-Also, if the Town Board, as a representative of the Town, and the other
Boards, the Zoning Board and the Planning Board, identify that it’s not appropriate for a
consulting firm to represent clients within the Town of Queensbury if they’re going to be
our engineering consultant, then VISION Engineering will have to make a decision
whether they want to continue to be our exclusive agent, engineering agent.
MR. BROWN-Do Planning Board reviews and Town projects, water projects, highway
projects, or do Planning Board review, or Town projects and Planning Board applicant
projects. You just can’t have all three.
MR. HUNSINGER-It’s not a problem with them representing those clients. It’s only a
problem with them representing those clients before the Town’s Boards.
MRS. STEFFAN-In the Town of Queensbury, yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, if they want to do drawings for a company that they’ve been
clients with for 10 years, that’s fine. Just don’t represent that client before the Planning
Board.
MR. BROWN-Yes. As employees, we’re bound to not be able to do that. Any time
you’re an employee for the Town, you can’t quit today and represent an applicant before
any Board on any project you’ve worked with for, I think it’s for a period of a year. I
mean, that’s just typical.
MRS. STEFFAN-It’s very similar, in my mind, I’m an independent consultant and I have
clients in this Town, and if a client came in front of the Planning Board, it would, what
VISION Engineering is doing currently is similar, if I have a client in front of me, I’m like,
well, I have a business arrangement, but I can be objective in voting on this client.
Would anybody else on the Board have a problem with that? I think so.
MR. KREBS-Well, not only that, in the corporate world, I mean, I had to sign non
compete agreements. So it said that I couldn’t compete with my company for the next
three years.
MR. OBORNE-Three years is typical, sure.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. BROWN-I’m not trying to stir up a big storm here.
MRS. STEFFAN-It’s been of concern. I certainly like, and I don’t want to down play. I
certainly like the work that VISION Engineering has been doing for the Town, between
what they’ve done for the Planning Board and engineering review, but also some of the
water projects that they’ve done, you know, specifically what happened over here on
Meadowbrook, on West Mountain. I mean, I think they’ve done really good work for us,
and I want them to continue to do good work for us, but I don’t personally like the gray
area conflict of interest issue.
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, and it seems as if, if I’m correct, Dan does all the reviews?
MR. BROWN-Dan and Mike.
MR. SEGULJIC-Mike does them, too?
MR. BROWN-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-You can tell the difference.
9
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/24/09)
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, they have different approaches.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Because it seems as if Dan was out there doing the work and
Mike was out there marketing it, saying we’re doing the work for Queensbury, come with
us, and, okay. Maybe that’s not what’s happening.
MR. BROWN-They’re in the same firm. It’s like having one attorney representing (lost
words).
MR. SEGULJIC-It’s not a good thing to have, and I think it’s just going to cause issues in
the future, and the sooner we nip it, the better off we’ll be.
MR. OBORNE-And I’m just throwing it out there. Maybe you’d want to voice your
concerns to the Town Board, in the form of a resolution or, you know, maybe talk to
Counsel.
MR. BROWN-I can certainly talk to Dan tomorrow, and I’m in the process of discussing it
with Bob Hafner, probably won’t be until next week anyway until we have an in-depth
discussion, but, you know, we’ve talked about these things, and that was one of his
questions is, well, is the Planning Board okay with it? And I didn’t know that it was
something that everybody had kind of picked up on and said, is this a good thing or not a
good thing. So, you know, we’ll pass it on to him, to Bob Hafner, and if he’s got a
suggestion over, I know what his suggestion will be is to take this paragraph out of the
contract that says you can’t work in the Town when you’re going to work for the Town.
Will VISION want to go for that? Probably not.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, there’s two recent examples that you can give. I mean, there’s
the project that was on West Mountain that was a major subdivision, and there’s another
one on Lake George. There were like 40 comments that Paragon Engineering had, and
then by the next meeting, the Planning Board was just like, oops, all taken care of. So
you had to ask yourself, come on.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, again, it’s not that they can’t do work in the Town. They just
can’t represent clients before the Town’s Boards.
MRS. STEFFAN-You can’t have the best of both.
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, it’s not unusual, if you’re doing a major construction project,
to have more than one engineering firm. Have one that does all the drawings and
whatever and then have somebody else that presents the project before the Board.
MR. BROWN-Okay. Well, I think I have a good indication of where you guys are on that
one. So, that’s all I would have with VISION.
MR. SEGULJIC-Could I ask a question while we have a change of subjects here?
MR. BROWN-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-What’s the status of Main Street? Is it Springtime they’re saying? Is
that really going to happen?
MR. BROWN-I’ve heard Springtime the last five years, but at least recently I’ve heard a
lot more rumblings from contractors who’ve said, look, this is going out to bid. People
are looking for numbers from us, what do we have to do to get rid of this fill here and
there. So they’re in the works.
MR. TRAVER-Well, at the last meeting, didn’t they identify the contractor? I thought I
saw in the Post Star.
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, they did. A place out of Troy.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, it was in the Post Star the other day, following the Town Board
meeting, that they decided on a contractor and they’re starting in the Spring.
MR. OBORNE-I was at an Adirondack/Glens Falls Transportation Council meeting last
week, and they had brought that up, and my understanding is that they had landed on
one of the bids, and it’s being sent to the, not the, sorry, New York Department of
Transportation for their review and approval. Once that happens, then I guess they start
to release the funds after that.
10
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/24/09)
MR. TRAVER-I remember noticing that it was from Troy, because that’s where my office
is.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, the interesting comment was when you made that comment, you
asked when is Main Street going to happen, you said, well, next Spring they’re going to
start. Tom Jarrett in the back was shaking his head.
MR. OBORNE-But I also qualified it by saying, but we’ve been hearing that for the last
five years.
MR. HUNSINGER-And I said Spring of what year?
MR. SEGULJIC-Because as we all know, it’s always very tough. I mean, I think Main
Street’s a great thing, but it just is very tough thing to deal with.
MR. OBORNE-And again, I’m no expert on it, but my feeling is that it will be moving
forward this Spring. That’s just my feeling.
MR. SEGULJIC-And how long is the construction time, in theory?
MR. OBORNE-Two and a half years, two years, something like that, I think it’s 22
months.
MR. TRAVER-That’s what I heard.
MR. OBORNE-It’s major, well, obviously. They call it the Corinth Road project.
MR. TRAVER-Are they using any stimulus money for that?
MR. OBORNE-I don’t believe so. It wasn’t shovel ready. I’m not sure exactly what the
deal was with that.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. I wouldn’t call it shovel ready.
MR. SEGULJIC-I digress, but there was that whole lawsuit about the underground
utilities. Where Queensbury sort of went out on a limb and said we’re doing it anyway, if
I recall correctly. Do we know where that?
MR. SIPP-The Town won.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, for now, right?
MR. SIPP-For now.
MR. BROWN-Lawsuit, while it’s on the top of my head, Fedorowitz.
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s what we wanted to talk to Counsel about.
MR. BROWN-Yes. I know you wanted to talk to Cathi about that, and I know she had
prepared a memo and sent it around to everybody and then apologized to you and
apologized to me the other day for not being able to be here tonight, but to explain it, and
not to take the place of Cathi, but from what I get, her memo basically said the decision
of the court was that the project and the decision to be remanded back to the Planning
Board. A lot of times what the court will do is they’ll remand it and say, this was
incorrect. You shouldn’t have denied it, we’re remanding it back, you have to approve it.
They didn’t tell you you have to approve it this time.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. BROWN-They just sent it back for you to look at it again, and Cathi’s
recommendation or comments are that, or were, I think, from her memo, that if you’re of
the same mindset to come to the same decision you had last time, to have more
information introduced into the record to support that position, and it would be a more
defensible position. If you introduce more information into the record and come to a
different decision, that’s fine, too, but I think the bottom line was her recommendation
was, based on what the court said, get more information into the record to base your
decision on, and that may make, you know, if it’s a denial again, may make it more
defensible.
11
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/24/09)
MR. JACKOSKI-What more information does one need when there’s such a direct
restriction? If it says I cannot put a commercial building on my property, it’s in my deed,
and I come to you guys and say I want to put commercial, such as the property that was
at the base of Exit 19, that little blue and white house that used to sit there for years,
couldn’t be commercial. I don’t know the restrictions that were there. They were
enforceable. Why isn’t this (lost word) subdivision enforceable?
MR. HUNSINGER-That was the reason why I, that was the big reason why I wanted to
talk to Cathi about it with the whole Board, because my interpretation of the memo
basically is saying that if you, if we pass a deed restriction saying no further subdivision,
then it’s non-binding.
MR. JACKOSKI-Forever and ever?
MR. HUNSINGER-They’re basically saying it’s only binding on the current owner.
MR. BROWN-It’s a condition you put on the application, so if you choose and see fit to
remove it, you can do that. If they come to you with a compelling argument that says,
look, I’ve got six acres of land, it’s a three acre zoning district. I don’t have any
environmental impacts. I’d like to subdivide it now. We didn’t envision it before. The
previous owner put it on there as an incentive to let you, you know, get a subdivision
approval. What do you think, now, about these two, three acre building lots that have
two perfect house sites on them? And maybe I’m fluffing it up. So the potential’s there
for you to look at it and say, you’re right, there aren’t any environmental impacts. We’re
going to take that condition off because it was offered by the applicant before. We, as a
Board, you know, we try and limit residential development, jumped at it and said, fine, no
further subdivision, but, you know what, your argument works. So, can you take it off?
Absolutely, you can take it off.
MR. TRAVER-What I interpreted from the decision, and I don’t remember the Latin
phrase now, but the judge referred to what the judge found the problem with our
decision, which was essentially the judge felt that we relied too much on the fact that a
decision had been taken earlier to maintain that no further subdivision, and there was a
Latin phrase for it, and I forgot we were going to talk about it tonight, or I would have,
because I went on line. I did all kinds of research on it. So, yes, we could have decided
to remove that restriction, but we didn’t. We decided to maintain it, but the judge decided
that we relied too much, in reviewing the minutes and looking at how we proceeded,
upon saying, we’re going to maintain the restriction that the previous review found, and
rather what we should have done was we could have come to the same conclusion, but
what we should have done was also delineate in the minutes and in the record, exactly,
we find that the conditions that were found in the previous decision, such as boom,
boom, boom, boom, boom, we’re reviewing this application, we find that those are still
present and therefore we re-affirm that decision.
MR. OBORNE-I think the biggest issue that you had with that project was that the Town
Engineer signed off on it also, and that was mentioned in that, and that really was
difficult, on top of you not removing that restriction. That does not preclude the applicant
from asking for the subdivision.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. OBORNE-And it seems that the judge was saying that you had precluded the
applicant from asking for that subdivision based on that restriction.
MR. TRAVER-Based on the fact that we basically said, well, it’s already says no further
subdivision.
MR. OBORNE-Right. You relied heavily on that.
MR. TRAVER-Right, too much, because we also brought up a number of other SEQRA
type issues and so on.
MR. OBORNE-Comprehensive Plan issues, too.
MR. TRAVER-Right, but the judge felt that they were not weighty enough to outweigh
this phrase which people appealing these decisions, and apparently it’s a fairly common,
I wish I could remember the phrase, but it’s in the thing, is a fairly common complaint that
applicants have, not just for Planning Board, but for other types of decisions as well that,
12
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/24/09)
well, that’s already been decided, and you really can’t do that. If you agree to take a look
at it, you really need to do a full and fair review, but it’s perfectly okay. We could have
come to exactly the same decision, and really what our intent was, was not to simply say
that it’s already been decided. We did discuss it. We did spend a lot of time talking
about it. We did listen to the applicant trying to argue that this isn’t exactly the same
application that we looked at before, but apparently the judge felt, and the applicant tried
to impress upon the judge, that, looking at the minutes and the discussion, there were
too many references, or there were significant references to the fact that this has
previously been denied, and therefore it’s denied.
MR. SEGULJIC-So, we should have taken the opposite look at it, if I’m understanding
this, in that we looked at it as up to the applicant to provide the information for us to, I
think it was like we said not enough adequate information has been provided for us to
change the decision.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. We put the burden on the applicant.
MR. SEGULJIC-It should have been that after reviewing this information, a no
subdivision should be placed on this.
MR. TRAVER-I came to the conclusion that it was almost like SEQRA, in the sense that,
if we, for example, we’ve had projects where we’ve done a SEQRA evaluation and we’ve
made a determination of, you know, there’s no problem with SEQRA, and then we get
new information and would re-visit SEQRA and say, okay, we re-affirm our previous
decision. We could have done the same thing with this. We could have said, you know,
the changes or the application that this individual has before us does not, you know,
represents exactly the same issues that were raised in the last time that it was before us.
So we’re not saying that, we’re not re-considering the concept of removing that
restriction, but we’re finding that the same reason that the earlier Planning Board had,
the same issues, are still present, and therefore we’re making that decision again. That
would have been fine.
MR. BROWN-Yes, and if you just expound on that and give all the details as to why
you’re going to keep that no further subdivision condition on there, I think that’s all she
was trying to say.
MRS. STEFFAN-In my mind we need to do that sooner. I remember when that applicant
came to us, when it came back to us the first time, and we ended up tabling it, and I said
to the applicant something like, just because we’re tabling this doesn’t mean that it’s
going to get approved or you’re going to spend a lot of money doing all the (lost words).
MR. TRAVER-That’s right.
MR. HUNSINGER-We said that every time we tabled it.
MR. OBORNE-You were under a threat, also, after the first meeting. They threatened
you with a lawsuit right off the bat, and that set the tenor of the whole application.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, with denying use and all that kind of stuff, plus, remember, the
applicant is also being told by their consultants that, you know, we can get this thing
turned around.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, that’s the other problem. I mean, I think it’s a bigger discussion
with Counsel here, because some of the rulings that are coming down from the judges. I
mean, it’s like, why are we wasting our time. Which goes back to my all time favorite
project, the boathouse, which is still unresolved after how many years, and they’re just
thumbing their nose up at the Town.
MR. TRAVER-That’s why the judge didn’t say, you know, you have to approve it or
whatever, because there was no problem with the decision. It was the process that the
judge had a problem with.
MR. BROWN-And the twist of that one is the new Zoning Code is now more consistent
with the Park Commission’s regulations on height, which is 16 feet, whereas before
when the original project came through it was 14 feet. So now their 17 foot boathouse is
a lot closer to the 16 foot than it was 14. So, you know, if that gets put back before the
judge, he’ll look at it and say, what are you giving them a hard time over a foot for?
MR. TRAVER-But I don’t understand.
13
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/24/09)
MR. BROWN-I know. I don’t agree with it either, but it’s been how many years, five
years?
MR. KREBS-It just comes down to, you know, there’s a law, and it says on
Meadowbrook that I have to drive 40 miles an hour. Now, if I go down there 60 miles an
hour and the sheriff stops me, I’m going to say to him, now, look, you can’t give me this
ticket because I’m not sure that you considered the speed limit correctly for this street.
Okay. I mean, come on, there are laws and we need to obey those laws.
MR. TRAVER-But in the case of the boathouse, why doesn’t the Park Commission not
issue them a permit for that dock?
MR. BROWN-Well, the Park Commission looks at dock size differently than we do. They
still have the no more than 700 square feet per dock, X number of docks per shoreline
that you have, but they allow you to take your two 700 square foot docks and slam them
together to make a 1400 square foot dock.
MR. TRAVER-So that’s a compliant boathouse?
MR. BROWN-Under the Park Commission.
MR. HUNSINGER-Wow.
MR. BROWN-Except for the height. I think it’s still going to be a foot from the height.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well, there you go. Then why issue them a permit? If they don’t
have a permit, then they get fined every single.
MR. BROWN-Well, I’m not sure that the Park Commission has issued them a permit, and
the Park Commission is notoriously horrible for any kind of enforcement at all.
MR. TRAVER-Well, they’ve got a new, Tom Kypa, now, with the Director of Law
Enforcement. He seems like a regular.
MR. SEGULJIC-Getting back to Fedorowicz. This means that the Board has to take an
action now.
MR. BROWN-It is. One of my questions, that’s what it is, what’s the next step, and that’s
for Cathi and how we do that, and if we just put it on and notify them that we’re going to
re-hear it, which is probably what’s going to happen. We’ll pick a date in January
sometime, and my question for you is, prior to doing that, do we want to get Counsel at
one of your meetings?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MR. BROWN-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-We thought that maybe Cathi or somebody could come at six o’clock
before our December Planning Board meeting and just give us a briefing.
MR. SEGULJIC-Now, just a general question, one thing I never really understood was, if
we took an action, how come we didn’t have to do SEQRA before? There was SEQRA
in that project I believe, right?
MR. BROWN-There was and you did.
MR. SEGULJIC-We didn’t do a SEQRA, though.
MR. BROWN-I think that you did.
MR. OBORNE-On Fedorowicz?
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-I don’t think it ever got that far because the issue.
14
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/24/09)
MR. OBORNE-You did SEQRA on that.
MR. SEGULJIC-Are you sure? Well, then we’re in real trouble if we gave it a Negative
dec and then denied it, but I don’t think we did SEQRA, because I’m pretty sure we
didn’t.
MR. TRAVER-It was a subdivision issue. It never got as far as SEQRA, at least I don’t
remember.
MR. OBORNE-Well, you have to do SEQRA before you do any action on an application.
MRS. STEFFAN-I know that, you know, one of the things that we’ve learned over the
prior years was to be really careful with our SEQRA declarations because of that very
thing. I mean, if you have a Negative Declaration, and then you want to deny an
application, well, why.
MR. BROWN-Golden Corral.
MR. TRAVER-We had plenty of SEQRA issues with that.
MR. OBORNE-I’ll research that.
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. I don’t believe we did, because I was always perplexed by that.
MR. OBORNE-I’m pretty sure it’s either approval or action. I just read that today, too.
MR. HUNSINGER-It’s simple, Keith. If the action of the Board is to deny their
application, there is no SEQRA because there’s no project.
MR. OBORNE-But if an action includes an approval and/or a denial, that’s an action.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. OBORNE-So I’m almost sure it’s an action, but I’m not sure. I’ll research it, though.
MR. BROWN-And the last twist of this is that the property has since transferred.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. BROWN-Somebody else owns the property.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. BROWN-But I think in that contract of sale they were also granted the rights to
continue the lawsuit if they want to. So will they or not? I don’t know. Will there be any
attendance when you guys re-hear it again? I don’t know, but I think in order to be
compliant with what the court said, you have to get it back on your docket someplace
and discuss it.
MR. SIPP-I feel, judge or no judge, that there’s, on our thing here, somebody gets sick,
or there’s a fire in the living room, or in a snow storm, and the ambulance or the fire truck
that’s got to go 600 feet up a 12% grade in order to get to that house, to me, that is just a
crime waiting to happen.
MR. OBORNE-They had to have a pull off halfway up.
MR. SEGULJIC-And the problem is the EMS, whatever, said they were fine with it, but
you can see how it’s this ongoing circle because now they say we need this bigger
equipment because we have to get up to these houses.
MR. SIPP-In the State fire laws it says that road must be 20 feet wide.
MR. TRAVER-Well, the visual impacts alone are.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-But do we have to re-hear the whole application or can we simply re-visit
our decision? I guess that’s an issue for Cathi.
15
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/24/09)
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s why we need Cathi.
MRS. STEFFAN-I think it’s a situation like the Golden Corral, you know, where we’re
given the judgment that our Counsel reads that to us and explains the ramifications of
that, and I don’t think it’s re-hearing the whole thing. I think it’s making a decision.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. I think she’d want to avoid re-hearing the application.
MR. BROWN-Yes. I’m not sure how much of it you can do. If you’re going to be
introducing new information into your decision.
MR. TRAVER-Well, that’s a problem.
MR. BROWN-Then the only really way you should be doing that is during public hearing.
If you’re holding a public hearing, that means you’re inviting comment from both sides,
and it’s almost like re-hearing the whole thing over again, but we’ll get Cathi, or hopefully
Cathi, because she’s from, and (lost word) the December meeting early, one of the
December meetings.
MR. OBORNE-We could have special one closer to the holidays if you want to.
nd
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, that’s why we didn’t want it on the 22. It’s too close. So did
we spend enough time talking on policy and procedures?
MR. OBORNE-Are you satisfied with the status quo right now as it’s working?
MR. KREBS-Well, you know, I’d be willing to go back and take some time and read
through it, you know, critically, again, if you want. I’ll be a committee of one if you want,
if that’s.
MR. OBORNE-That’s a lot of power.
MR. BROWN-Well, probably at your next meeting you’ll want to actually do a resolution.
MR. KREBS-Right, but I would just, you know, I’ll just go through it and if I have any
comments, I’ll tell you what the comments are
MR. SIPP-Has anybody taken a look at the new checklist and understand? What do you
think of it? Let’s put it that way.
MR. KREBS-I think the new checklist is good.
MR. HUNSINGER-I like it a lot.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, it’s handy.
MR. OBORNE-The one that I gave you? That’s the slimmed version, but it’s still A
through O?
MR. SIPP-Yes.
MR. KREBS-Right. Yes.
MR. BROWN-And we’re always trying to improve the applications and add a question
here or there if it’s going to help. The next one we’re going to add is, you know, is this
project in a designated MS-4? Which is, you know, a stormwater area. So, put it on
them to answer those questions and get that information out there in the beginning.
MR. OBORNE-That helps us track it.
MR. BROWN-Because we have reporting requirements for the DEC.
MRS. STEFFAN-Now, our regular review, whether it’s Site Plan, Special Use Permit,
whatever, we’ve got some, we used to have a criteria that we used. We’ve talked a
couple of times at our organizational meetings about dragging that out and using it again,
as a review criteria.
MR. TRAVER-That Site Plan thing we went down.
16
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/24/09)
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. We really got away from that, yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-And we have it. I mean, we’ve said we were going to use it. We
haven’t. We kind of got out of the habit. So do we want to go back to that, you know, the
Site Plan Review checklist, and to go down, Chris, as somebody who runs the meeting,
okay, let’s talk about design standards, let’s talk about landscaping.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, to me it makes sense, just because it keeps it organized.
MR. TRAVER-Keeps the flow of the meeting.
MR. SEGULJIC-Just keeps it flowing. Instead of sometimes we talk here. We talk
around, we talk about this, we talk about this, we talk about that.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, from a motion point of view, I mean, it’s very difficult. I mean, I’m
all over the chart. I’m writing notes, and I really, it’s hard for me to participate sometimes
when I’m writing notes, you know.
MR. BROWN-And if you get into a regular habit of how you review applications,
applicants are going to catch on to that and they’re going to come prepared to have
those answers for you. Maybe that’ll even make things go a little smoother.
MR. KREBS-Absolutely, because we’ve got about six engineering firms that represent
almost everybody that comes to the Board, so they’ll get that clear message very quickly
that.
MR. OBORNE-It won’t take long.
MR. BROWN-And an easy comparison to what the Zoning Board does. They need
variances, there’s five criteria for any variance. The Zoning Board goes through those
every single time, and the applicants are ready for those responses every single time.
MRS. STEFFAN-And I put together a spread sheet, which I can send back around, of
those things, so that, you know, you can print them out and they’re blanks. So that as
you go down each one of the layers, as you’re doing your prep for the meeting, you can
just put notes in those, you know, empty slots, so you’re ready to go.
MR. OBORNE-Well, that’s very similar to the sheet I sent to you guys, I handed out. It’s
just a break down of A through O of the Site Plan criteria for approval, and gives you
places to write and then I have a little checkmark did you look at this and you check yes
or however you want to do it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Can you e-mail that to us?
MR. OBORNE-I could certainly re-send that. Absolutely. It’s a slimmed down version of
Page Four.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. BROWN-A follow up question to this is, do you think maybe in the future, maybe
even near future, the Staff Notes look more like this, so as you’re going through it you’ve
got, we’ll follow your list and say, here’s our comments on your checklist kind of item.
MRS. STEFFAN-That would be helpful.
MR. BROWN-We could do that. Then it’s just a fill in the blank. You don’t have to think
about what do I look at.
MR. OBORNE-That would be a shift in the way I review, but certainly, I mean, everything
that I do is part of that, because I would have, the thing is when I’m doing a review, if you
notice, I take my first page, second page, third page, and I just go through and soup to
nuts.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, and if it works, don’t fix it. I mean, you know, I like (lost word) having
this, but I don’t know. I mean, the way you’re doing it now, it just seems to work so well.
MR. OBORNE-I’ll see what I can do to incorporate that in because that would certainly
jive with what you’re doing with your review and my review, and then we can reconcile, if
need be.
17
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/24/09)
MR. HUNSINGER-And of course this was put together before the new Code.
MRS. STEFFAN-When I joined the Planning Board five years ago, Craig used to use
that. So I don’t know where it came from. We used to go down, it was predictable.
MR. HUNSINGER-It was an amalgamation. It was kind of developed over time, which is
why mine still has notes, construction concerns, mitigation, you know, because that was
like a new one that we kind of thought of after we started using it.
MRS. STEFFAN-That would probably be easier. I mean, in my, when I do my prep now,
as Planning Board secretary, and if anybody wants that job in January, please feel free,
when I do my prep, it’s just now I’m starting the motions, you know, in my prep, so I’m
thinking of a little bit differently than if I was just a regular Planning Board member and
doing the review. Because my focus is obviously getting the motions together and
making sure they cover all the bases.
MR. TRAVER-Which you do very well, by the way.
MR. KREBS-Yes.
MR. BROWN-With that format, you could be bullet iteming those things and you’re doing
your resolution, if you’re going through, just add it to the list.
MR. SEGULJIC-But, you know, maybe to help Gretchen, one of the things we should
start doing is other people do the motions.
MRS. STEFFAN-And I have to admit, the new motions, the new resolutions that you’re
putting in the packages, are much improved, and, you know, it’s just like there are lots of
options and so they’re much easier, and I know that we’ve gone through these transitions
with different Planning Board Chairman.
MR. OBORNE-I would like to take this time to also recognize that it’s not just me, it’s
Staff, it’s Pam, especially Pam, and obviously Craig, and I do get a lot of input from
Bruce and everybody there, that really help, but Pam is indispensible. Absolutely
indispensible.
MR. KREBS-Well, maybe we should assign one of the six items to each of us to do the
motion every meeting.
MR. JACKOSKI-I think, though, the consistency has been great. I mean, I sit in the
back, and believe me.
MR. SEGULJIC-The only comment is, though, she’s not going to be here forever. Nor is
she at every meeting.
MR. JACKOSKI-I’d offer to do it but I’m only an alternate.
MR. SEGULJIC-And I think my only other comment would be maybe one way to prompt
this along is that, okay, we’re going to take ten minutes, you know who the people who
are more passionate about that particular item. Take ten minutes or five minutes and put
this motion together.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-And ironically that can save time, even though you’re taking time away
from.
MR. SEGULJIC-Because I know it’s tough when you’ve got everybody and you’re trying
to get the motion together.
MR. TRAVER-Although with the improved management of the whole application
process, there are fewer conditions, it seems, that we need.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Your best approvals are really no conditions.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
18
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/24/09)
MRS. STEFFAN-When we have people back and we table them and we provide them
with conditions and we let them know, you satisfy all these conditions, you’re ready to
move forward, then we get clean motions because they’ve got their plans all done,
they’ve satisfied all of our requirements, and so it’s easier for enforcement. It’s easier for
approval.
MR. OBORNE-You’ll see a lot of addendums also, because I’m really after the
applicants. We have our deadline date, and then we have our deadline date. For the
most part this past cycle was pretty sloppy for zoning as far as the applications, what
was submitted, and I have to do my review of them the next day after deadline day, and
then I give them a drop dead date for addendums, and we’ve lost like two or three of
these. They couldn’t turn them around.
MR. BROWN-Which is a kudos to Keith because my position would be if it’s not ready on
deadline day, see you next month, but Keith does go the extra step and say, look, I’ll give
you a few more days to clean these two or three things up.
MR. OBORNE-Especially when it’s slow.
MR. BROWN-Especially now when it’s slow. In the summertime, it just won’t be practical
to do. It’s that tough love. Hopefully they get it but they just never seem to get it. The
applicants, over time they’re going to get, getting bumped off an agenda for two months
and.
MR. KREBS-I think the more consistent we get at doing that, the less you’re going to
have that problem, and they’re going to get the message.
MR. BROWN-And that’s the pitfall, because Keith’s going to pick up on here pretty soon,
when everybody’s wanting that extra week to do it, and, you know, this time of the year,
hey, that’s fine to do, but when it gets busy, you’re going to look at it and say, you’re
missing a signature, see you next month, not a signature, but, you know.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, and there’ve been a couple of times in the last year that the
Planning Board has been critical of Community Development, and I think that there have
been a lot of issues that have been resolved over the last many months, but I would like
to suggest that we don’t do that anymore. If we have issues, if we have systemic issues,
we solve those outside of the Planning Board meeting, not at the Planning Board
meeting, because I feel extremely uncomfortable when we are critical of the Staff,
because what it does is it pits the applicant against the Staff against the Town.
MR. TRAVER-Well, and the public has no context for what we’re talking about.
MRS. STEFFAN-Exactly.
MR. TRAVER-So, yes, it’s very inappropriate.
MR. BROWN-Not that it has to be said, but everybody knows that we’re here, Staff is
here for the Board. We’re not here to further the applicants along. The only thing we’re
here to help them do is to get before you with a complete enough package for you guys
to decide. So regardless of what any applicant’s going to come to the Board and tell you
that, they told me this was okay, that I could do this, we’re telling them they have to do
this before they can even get before you, and I understand that you guys know that, and
just to follow up on what Gretchen said, anytime you have a question about any
application, call before the meeting or shoot an e-mail, we’ll try and get a response to
you immediately. We’re all at our desks, unfortunately most of the day, so we can shoot
an e-mail response back real quick or do some research and get an answer for you as
soon as, you know, right up until four o’clock the day of the meeting or 4:30 the day of
the meeting. We’ll try and get an answer for you. So, yes, it is a little disheartening to
find out that there was a problem at the meeting last night that, you know, we could have
solved with a simple phone call or an e-mail.
MR. SIPP-Don’t get too good, you won’t get anymore Staff.
MR. OBORNE-We’re not going to get anymore Staff.
MR. HUNSINGER-The only other item I had, I don’t mean to cut off debate, if there’s
other issues we want to bring up tonight, feel free, is our site visits. It seems like we’ve
19
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/24/09)
gotten away from the habit of doing site visits, a lot of the Saturday together before the
meeting.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-And, you know, I’m to blame as much as anybody. The last couple I
begged out for different reasons, but I do know, when we do go out and do them
together, it’s very helpful and very useful. So I just want to bring that back up and, you
know, get the pulse of the Board. Is it a practice we want to continue or, I mean, if it
were up to me, I would say let’s try to continue it.
MR. TRAVER-I think it’s good to do it. I think that, you know, we’ve had some vehicle
issues, we’ve had some, you know, access issues, you know, we’ve had some situations
where we’ve had applicants before us that we’ve already done, you know, there wasn’t a
lot of new information to be gained by doing the site visits, but I think in principle, and I
agree completely with what you’re saying. It’s very interesting. It’s really a learning
experience, at least it always has been for me, because we’ll often discuss not the
specific application, but we’ll discuss in general maybe the types of issues that are likely
to be confronted in a given situation, or a given agenda, and that can be very (lost word).
MR. KREBS-I don’t know. That’s one of the reasons I looked at the extended timeframe
was so that we could get Staff and engineering comments prior to going to the site,
because it would be much more valuable for us to have, understand what you’re
concerns are or what the engineer’s concerns are, before we go look at the site, than it is
afterwards, because, you know, afterwards, you go, I should have looked down there,
and how much level land was there, and, you know, where if we had those beforehand,
then we could really make that site visit valuable.
MR. OBORNE-Yes. I think the first step, to be honest with you, and I can’t disagree with
what you’re saying, is to actually make that site visit, though. I mean, I think if you don’t
make that site visit, you’re not going to get the picture at all, and 98% of the time I do
make a site visit and I’m on that site taking pictures, and you see that (lost words). That
two percent that I don’t go, I mean, it’s, I know I’m missing something, especially when
I’m doing the review that has influence. So, you know, it’s very important. The first step
is definitely do the site visit, and the notes will get to you by noon on Friday. That’s the
way it stands right now. That’s the process.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I mean, I just know when I go by myself that, you know, a lot of
times I don’t bother to get out of the car.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, I had the same experience.
MR. OBORNE-I do a lot of snooping, just to see exactly what’s going on.
MR. BROWN-Everybody got ID badges, right?
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes.
MR. BROWN-Okay.
MR. TRAVER-Do they have to be replaced every year, because I think I’ve had mine for.
MR. BROWN-I thought, didn’t we had out newer ones?
MR. SIPP-It’s only one year.
MR. BROWN-So, this year, yes, they’ll do some new ones again.
MR. OBORNE-Just to let you know that you’re legally allowed on the property once they
sign that application.
MR. HUNSINGER-What’s funny about that Keith, is I have, geez, almost 10 years now
being on the Board, I don’t know if we’ve ever had a problem.
MR. KREBS-No, in fact, I find, and I’ve gone, a lot of times, by myself, too, because I like
to see the site before, you’ll end up chatting with the applicant and he gives you more
information. In fact, the one up on Cleverdale, Jim Underwood was working with the guy
on the house.
20
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/24/09)
MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else anyone wants to bring up?
MR. OBORNE-I do have one other thing, and that has to do with your training, and/or the
lack thereof.
MR. HUNSINGER-Actually, I’m glad you brought that up.
MR. OBORNE-I do have a status on everybody. I used to have a status on everybody.
Gretchen, I did send you an e-mail because I know that you were at the Planning
Federation meeting. Did you get anything signed? Usually they say if you need the
hours they have usually a little piece of paper.
MR. TRAVER-Or they’ll give you a little Xeroxed certificate that they’ll sign at the end of
the class.
MRS. STEFFAN-And I went to the one in Saratoga, too.
MR. KREBS-Well, and Don and I and who else went to the one in Lake George.
MR. SIPP-Just you and I.
MR. KREBS-And we signed a thing up there.
MR. SIPP-They were going to take care of it.
MR. KREBS-Right, that’s what they told me.
MR. OBORNE-What I have, and Stu Baker tracks this, and the only way you can track it
is if you get something, a piece of paper that tells them what’s going on. That’s the only
way. So, Chris, Gretchen, Tom Seguljic, Tom Ford have zero hours for this year. Don,
the two Dons, you have credit, and Steve, you have three hours each, and that was from
the SEQRA conference.
MR. KREBS-Don and I should have four because we were supposed to get one from
that Lake George.
MR. OBORNE-Sure, so you should be up to date. Paul has four. He went down to the
Association of Towns, and Steve, you don’t have anything, you’re part of the zero crowd.
So that’s what I have now in ’09. So if you have anything backlogged or you have a
piece of paper, get it to us as quickly as possible.
MR. HUNSINGER-Probably not. I was at the Saratoga conference. That’s why I was
joking about it. I took care of it in January of last year.
MRS. STEFFAN-Right, we were both there.
MR. BROWN-That’s something that Pam has coordinated and paid registration fees for.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, she didn’t because they asked me to be a speaker, so I was
there as a speaker.
MR. BROWN-Okay, but to track that from our side.
MR. TRAVER-When we have workshops and we’re, because, I mean, not necessarily
our agenda tonight, but I mean, it’s not unusual when we get together in this type of
forum we, we’re talking with Counsel or we’re talking with engineering, do we, do those
count as training hours?
MR. OBORNE-I think that there’s no hard fast list.
MR. TRAVER-Okay, but I mean if we don’t determine what it is.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, because the bottom line is it’s up to the Town Board.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. BROWN-I think a discussion like this would probably count towards it. I mean,
we’ve talked about ethical issues, policy issues, and I think it’s all, it’s educational.
21
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/24/09)
MR. TRAVER-Could we maybe work on a resolution or ask the Town Board? Because
even site visits is very instructive. I mean, in a lot of ways it’s more.
MR. OBORNE-I don’t know if that’s educational.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that’s more of the job, really. Well, and I know in the past, and
I’m trying to remember what workshop it was, where we had, I think it was, we had Matt
Fuller come in and give us an hour presentation, or whatever.
MRS. STEFFAN-SEQRA.
MR. HUNSINGER-He actually gave us the piece of paper.
MR. OBORNE-Yes. He’s a SEQRA guy. I know he did that in Washington County.
MR. KREBS-Well, they actually did a great, the one we went down to in Fort Edward,
which was three credit hours and it was like three hours, and they had pizza halfway
through, but that was very, very good.
MR. BROWN-So if Pam could register you some place, and there’s a PO or voucher for
it some place, we can track it some place. If you get something when you actually attend
it, bring that in for us.
MR. JACKOSKI-Is it January through December?
MR. OBORNE-Yes, it’s the calendar year, and all I can say is that you certainly need to
tighten it up. That’s all, and it’s good to cover, it’s for anything. It’s covering yourselves.
MR. KREBS-Now, in a case like the Lake George situation, their annual, we went there.
They almost forgot that they were even offering credit, then they finally got this thing and
they let us sign it at noon. Now, if they don’t do anything with that, can we bring our
badge in, or, I mean, we don’t have any other proof that we.
MR. SIPP-Well, I’ve got a couple of witnesses.
MR. KREBS-Yes, I’ve got a witness.
MR. BROWN-(lost words) some sort of form that you would take that says, you know,
this counts as X number of hours of credit towards my Planning Board training and have
whoever the instructor is sign something like that. We can do that ourselves and have
that record keeping. We don’t have to get something from them. Just a blank piece of
paper telling.
MR. TRAVER-A request that I’d like to make is couldn’t we try to, and I know it’s not
obviously entirely the Town of Queensbury, but either through our own workshops or
something, could we try to offer, every year, enough hours to satisfy this requirement that
are not during the work day, and I say that very selfishly. Being in a clinical program, it’s
difficult for me to leave during the day. I mean, I would love to go to some of these big
things, but it’s very, very difficult.
MR. OBORNE-We certainly, as Staff, can put on workshops for you in, you know, map
reading, Site Plan Review.
MR. TRAVER-Exactly.
MR. BROWN-What would work, like an hour before a meeting every other month or
something like that?
MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, why can’t we do that?
MR. TRAVER-Well, I don’t know that we need to do it every month, but I mean.
MR. BROWN-Every other month or twice a year or.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, or at least enough so that, you know, you can make maybe all but
one and meet your minimum requirement, if you can’t go to the day long.
MR. OBORNE-I know it’s difficult, and I don’t want to, the Planning Federation, those
conferences, this is my second year in a row. I mean, they’re very valuable and they’re
22
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/24/09)
very good. They’re just fabulous tools. Very good, and it’s, actually the American
Planning Association is in New Orleans this year.
MR. BROWN-It should be fun.
MR. OBORNE-It should be.
MRS. STEFFAN-I think the State Planning Federation is going to be in Lake Placid
again.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, it is.
MRS. STEFFAN-In September.
MR. SEGULJIC-Does the stormwater course count also?
MR. OBORNE-Yes, the stormwater course totally would count. That was up in Lake
George.
MR. SEGULJIC-It’s up to the Town to decide what’s relevant.
MR. HUNSINGER-It’s up to the Town Board.
MR. BROWN-And that window is wide open.
MRS. STEFFAN-I have to admit that I really had a good time in Lake Placid, and just
sitting at lunch and dinner with other people from other parts of the State, and when you
start to hear about the things they’re dealing with, it’s fascinating, and then you can
compare, you know, your Town and your processes, your procedures.
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re talking to some of the people in the Finger Lakes that are
dealing with the stormwater runoff from the farms.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, that was a big presentation there, too.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-It’s very good for one’s self-esteem I find, too, because every time I talk to
somebody from another town that’s involved, not even if they’re necessarily involved
specifically in a Planning Board, but when I talk about how we handle our applicants and
the Staff and how we do everything here, they’re amazed. It’s like, wow, you guys really
have it together, you know, and it’s like, yes, well, of course we do.
MR. OBORNE-I think it shows in the Town.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, it does.
MRS. STEFFAN-Two very interesting programs, I think Keith and I attended one
together, I attended a couple of SEQRA programs, but there was a whole program on
conservation subdivisions which was very interesting, Arnett. He was the guy who, we
watched the video when we were doing the Comprehensive Land Use Plan re-write, and
so he was the speaker, and it was very interesting to see his presentation on
conservation subdivisions, and then to see some of the examples of successful
conservation subdivisions, but then they also had some workshops where you could
actually, you know, okay, here’s a piece of property, now what do you do with it, which is
part of our problem. We had an application come in front of us, I recommended a
conservation subdivision. The agent for the applicant was like, well, you have no criteria
in your Code, you know, tell us what to do, and so we were stymied.
MR. KREBS-But I think the other thing, here, what you’re saying, too, is I learned a lot
when I went down to Fort Edward, you know, like one of the things that came up was, if
you have a sound problem, put a berm in place. It’ll absorb that. I never thought of that
before, and that was a question asked by somebody else, not anybody from our Board,
and so you learn from the other people’s questions, and I think that’s a.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure.
MRS. STEFFAN-The really interesting that was, I went to two SEQRA workshops, and
Betty Hughes presented at both of those, as well as other experts in the area, but they
23
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/24/09)
kept talking about the focus for the State on greenhouse gas emissions, and I have to
admit, I’m feeling, I’m conflicted, based on the information that they were providing,
because, you know, one of the things that they are recommending is that we weigh and
consider the effects of development on greenhouse gases that effect our environment,
you know, and I asked a question. I raised my hand at one point and I said, okay, folks,
you know, reality check. I’m a Planning Board member. I’m reviewing an application.
I’m doing a SEQRA review, and somebody’s proposing an office development in my
community, and I’m going to raise my hand and say, well, office development really has
a very big impact on greenhouse gases, and I just don’t think that I can vote positively on
this particular development. I said, the agent, the applicant, the economic development
people will eat me alive.
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-And so from a SEQRA point of view you’re telling me that we’re not in
favor of some of the development that’s going to create, you know, office infrastructure is
one of those things. It creates a (lost word) greenhouse gas.
MR. HUNSINGER-I thought you were going to say a commercial development that’s
going to bring a lot of retail traffic.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, Chris, you can go there, too, because the cars that come back
and forth, it’s the footprint, it’s the lights, it’s the heat, it’s people driving to the place, and
it’s very difficult for the common man to quantify some of the things the State is telling us
that we need to quantify from a SEQRA point of view, and so I left those workshops
being very conflicted, because I think that the information that they’re providing is very
ambiguous for a Planning Board member to try to deal with.
MR. OBORNE-Well, I think when you’re dealing with planning, and this is just the way I
think about it, is I look at the word planning, and what does it mean? It’s not now, it’s
future. So some of those issues, and just the first thing that came up would be mass
transit, instead of the big parking lot, and how do you enforce that, well, you reduce the
parking spaces, but Don’s got a, he’s 100% on the mark. People don’t like that. This is
an automobile. So you have to change that in the future. That’s the only way that it’s
going to happen. So that’s the way I approach it, and pedestrian safety, pedestrian
access, huge.
MR. KREBS-And of course that is if there is really any problem with the gases because I
just was listening to a place today and they’re saying there is no warming and it’s all.
MR. TRAVER-Well, they found all those e-mails.
MR. KREBS-Yes, they found all those e-mails. I was going to say, if you want to see an
interesting building, I don’t know if you’ve ever been to the Barton Mines building in
Downtown Glens Falls, but they’ve made that a very, very green building, and in fact it
might be, as an educational thing some time, that we have a tour for the Planning Board.
MR. OBORNE-Sure.
MR. KREBS-Because they have done wonderful things like using lighting, outside
lighting, to make sure that all office spaces don’t need heavy electrical lighting, that they
get the outside light. On their roof, they have all sorts of plants that, you know, absorb
moisture or give off moisture, reflect heat. So that would be a very interesting tour.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, Oscars has gone geothermal.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, that’s going to be quite a facility when it gets done.
MRS. STEFFAN-So I just thought I would mention that, as an additional component.
MR. BROWN-Two quick things. On that vein, workshops and what counts towards
educational stuff, night visits, Saturday night go and check out a site lighting kind of
thing. I’m just trying to come up with ideas of, I mean, you see all these plans that say
here’s what my lighting looks like, here’s what the foot candles are, but.
MR. TRAVER-Let’s go look at Sasquatch.
24
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/24/09)
MR. BROWN-Well, let’s go look at a site that’s got some really ugly lights versus one that
you’ve looked at and said, wow, this is a great plan. What does it really look like in the
field, so the next time you get that plan, you can say.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, because we have some really good things we’ve done in the Town
and we have some really bad things.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, now that it’s winter, it doesn’t even have to be that late. I mean,
it’s dark at 4:30.
MR. SEGULJIC-My favorite lighting plan is always the Stewarts on 149 and Ridge.
MR. HUNSINGER-You know which project is my favorite, in all seriousness, in terms of
the new lighting code, was the Saturn dealership.
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. I agree.
MR. HUNSINGER-Because that was really the first one that we really enforced the new
lighting code on, and it was just so dramatic, you know.
MR. OBORNE-And how’s Saturn doing these days? That’s what stinks.
MR. TRAVER-It’s right across the street from the Golden Corral.
MR. OBORNE-They’ll be back.
MRS. STEFFAN-It’s interesting, because in the Town, obviously, when somebody
comes in front of us for Site Plan Review we have requirements and restrictions, but I
was driving down West Mountain Road, and there’s a bunch of new houses, and folks
put big, what look like the street lights that look like what we have like in Downtown
Glens Falls. They put them out in front of their house right next to the road, but they
don’t have, they’re not downcast, and it is remarkable, when you drive down West
Mountain Road, you’re blinded by these, what are, they’re street lights, but they’re at the
end of someone’s driveway.
MR. BROWN-Those big cobra headlights, yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, so you’ve got standards in Town for commercial development, but
not residential.
MR. HUNSINGER-A similar thing happened to me, because we have a stanchion, you
know, by our driveway. It’s well off the road, though, but I replaced it with one of those
big extended life, you know, the heavy duty outdoor extended life light bulbs. That thing,
the glare off that light is horrible, and I’ll bet you that’s what they used. I can’t wait for it
to burn out.
MRS. STEFFAN-Some of the driveway lighting that people put along their homes, it
reflects out.
MR. KREBS-I would definitely like to go do that if you wanted to go do that, because
when I look at those foot candles, I can read the document, but it really doesn’t mean
much.
MR. OBORNE-Those are measurements that are on the ground?
MR. KREBS-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-They’re right on the ground, not at eye level or anything like that.
MR. KREBS-No, I realize where they are, but what does that look like?
MR. HUNSINGER-I think that’s a great idea.
MR. BROWN-The next question I have is, along that same vein, I know the Town Board,
probably not until the beginning of next year right now, is looking at revising and then re-
visiting the new Zoning Code. There was a bunch of deletions and omissions and typos
that they have to go back and clean up. So if you guys come across anything in your
reading and say why is this in here, shoot an e-mail. I’ve got a list that’s this long
already. We’ll just add it on the list for the Board to look at, if you come up with anything.
25
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/24/09)
MRS. STEFFAN-We talked about, two meetings ago, actually, I said to the Planning
Board, one of the things if we’re slow and we don’t have a lot of things to fill up our
agenda going forward, there’s a couple of holes in the Zoning Code, and, you know,
design standards is one of them. We talk about them but we haven’t defined what they
are, and I know that there’s a couple of things that need attention, and so we could
certainly do some workshops on those things.
MR. TRAVER-There’s a committee.
MR. BROWN-It would be nice to have the Planning Board do planning instead of project
review, you know.
MR. SIPP-Sign revision?
MR. BROWN-Yes. Right now there’s a draft revision to the Subdivision Ordinance,
which is going to include a conservation subdivision which has LEED incentives in it for
energy efficient development, and after that, it’s probably going to be signs or they’ll go
back to the Zoning Ordinance first. Yes, the sign code is, you know, 36 years old right
now.
MR. SIPP-We fixed Five Guys, didn’t we?
MR. BROWN-Well, we’ve got their attention for now, but there’s a lot of other signages
out there we’ve got to take a look at, but that is on the agenda to look at is the Sign
Ordinance.
MR. SIPP-It definitely needs to be re-done because.
MRS. STEFFAN-Our signs are largely cheesy in this Town.
MR. HUNSINGER-They’re too tall.
MRS. STEFFAN-Too tall, poorly lit.
MR. TRAVER-Too many digital signs. There’s two that I know of.
MRS. STEFFAN-There’s two, that gas station, and the CVS.
MR. TRAVER-And the other gas station, and the Stewarts that put it in after we approved
their site plan.
MR. OBORNE-Digital sign, which Stewarts is this?
MRS. STEFFAN-The Stewarts on the corner of Dix and Quaker.
MR. TRAVER-Dix Avenue. I just happened to be driving that way, it was not long after
our Site Plan Review, and I shot off an angry e-mail to everybody saying who approved
the digital sign. It was more of a question of we didn’t disapprove it, I guess, is really
what it boils down to.
MR. BROWN-Yes, and that’s the thing, they can come in with a compliant sign and show
you guys, here’s the sign we’re going to come up, but unless it specifically said, okay,
here’s the sign you’re going to put in, if they come in with a different compliant sign, they
can do that other compliant sign, and at that time there was no prohibition to ban the
signs.
MR. TRAVER-Right. Then the other question that we’ve discussed is, since there is a
prohibition of digital signs, do they need to take it out?
MR. BROWN-That’s a good question. Yes. I think the way that it’s written, it said, this
was months ago, a year ago, that all of them within a six month period I think had to be
removed. I think that’s the way it was written, and, you know, that along with all of the
little stick in the ground signs you see out there, it’s an enforcement thing that, when you
read the sign code (lost words) not by the Zoning Administrator and the Code
Compliance Officer. So there’s that disconnect over, if you need a Sign Variance, I have
to tell you you need a Sign Variance and you have to go to the Zoning Board that way,
but if there’s a violation, then the Building Inspector (tail end of tape indistinguishable).
26
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/24/09)
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Chris Hunsinger, Chairman
27